Changes in Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Use of Mental Health Services under the Affordable Care Act: Evidence from California.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aimed to expand mental health service use in the US, by expanding access to health insurance. However, the gap in mental health utilization by race and ethnicity is pronounced: members of racial and ethnic minoritized groups remain less likely to use mental health services than non-Hispanic White individuals even after the ACA. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study assessed the effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on mental health services use in one large state (California), and whether that effect differed among racial and ethnic groups. Also, it tested for change in racial and ethnic disparities after the implementation of the ACA, using four measures of mental health care. METHODS: Using pooled California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) data from 2011-2018, logistic regression and Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were estimated. Disparities were defined using the Institute of Medicine (IOM) definition. Primary outcomes were any mental health care in primary settings; in specialty settings, any prescription medication for mental health problems, and number of annual visits to mental health services. RESULTS: Findings suggested that the change in Hispanic-non-Hispanic White disparities in prescription medication use under the ACA was statistically significant, narrowing the gap by 7.23 percentage points (p<.05). However, the disparity in other measures was not significantly reduced. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that the magnitude of the increase in primary and specialty mental health services among racial and ethnic minorities was not large enough to significantly reduce racial and ethnic disparities. One possible explanation is that non-financial factors played a role, such as language barriers, attitudinal barriers from home culture norms, and systemic barriers due to mental health professional shortages and a limited number of mental health care providers of color. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Integrated approaches that coordinate specialty and primary care mental health services may be needed to promote mental healthcare access for members of racial and ethnic minoritized groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Federal and state policies aiming to improve mental health services use have historically given more weight to financial determinants, but this has not been enough to significantly reduce racial/ethnic disparities. Thus, policies should pay more attention to non-financial determinants. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Assessing underlying mechanisms of non-financial factors that moderate the effectiveness of the ACA is a worthwhile goal for future research. Future studies should examine the extent to which non-financial factors intervene in the relationship between the implementation of the ACA and mental health services use.

Understanding the Implications of Medicaid Expansion for Cancer Care in the US: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: Insurance status has been linked to important differences in cancer treatment and outcomes in the US. With more than 15 million individuals gaining health insurance through Medicaid expansion, there is an increasing need to understand the implications of this policy within the US cancer population. This review provides an overview of the fundamental principles and nuances of Medicaid expansion, as well as the implications for cancer care. OBSERVATIONS: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act presented states with an option to expand Medicaid coverage by broadening the eligibility criteria (eg, raising the eligible income level). During the past 10 years, Medicaid expansion has been credited with a 30% reduction in the population of uninsured individuals in the US. Such a significant change in the insurance profile could have important implications for the 1.7 million patients diagnosed with cancer each year, the oncology teams that care for them, and policy makers. However, several factors may complicate efforts to characterize the effect of Medicaid expansion on the US cancer population. Most notably, there is considerable variation among states in terms of whether Medicaid expansion took place, when expansion occurred, eligibility criteria for Medicaid, and coverage types that Medicaid provides. In addition, economic and health policy factors may be intertwined with factors associated with Medicaid expansion. Finally, variability in the manner in which cancer care has been captured and depicted in large databases could affect the interpretation of findings associated with expansion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The expansion of Medicaid was a historic public policy initiative. To fully leverage this policy to improve oncological care and to maximize learning for subsequent policies, it is critical to understand the effect of Medicaid expansion. This review aims to better prepare investigators and their audiences to fully understand the implications of this important health policy initiative.

Value and Cost Savings From Access to Multi-disciplinary Rehabilitation Services After Severe Acquired Brain Injury.

Acquired brain injury (ABI) is a major global public health problem and source of disability. A major contributor to disability after severe ABI is limited access to multidisciplinary rehabilitation, despite evidence of sustained functional gains, improved quality of life, increased return-to-work, and reduced need for long-term care. A societal model of value in rehabilitation matches patient and family expectations of outcomes and system expectations of value for money. A policy analysis of seven studies (2009-2019) exploring outcomes and cost-savings from access to multi-disciplinary rehabilitation identified average lifetime savings of $1.50M per person, with costs recouped within 18 months. Recommendations: Increase access to multi-disciplinary rehabilitation following severe ABI; strengthen prevention focus; increase access to case management; support return-to-work; and systematically collect outcome and cost data.

The time is now: tackling racial and ethnic disparities in mental and behavioral health services in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is in the midst of a demographic shift that will leave the state with unprecedented ethnic, racial and cultural diversity. In light of this change, health care services in the Commonwealth need to respond to and serve an increasingly multicultural population. The time is now for bold initiatives to reduce behavioral health and health service disparities by building collaborations between policymakers, insurers/payers, provider organizations, training institutions, and community groups. In the same way collaboration among diverse stakeholders enabled the Commonwealth to lead the nation in achieving near universal access to health insurance, a new collaboration can pave the way for the elimination of behavioral health and health care disparities. This brief compiles current information on racial and ethnic disparities in mental health and substance use disorders and treatment disparities in Massachusetts. It concludes with state level policy recommendations. The Brief does not recommend policies already in motion, such as moving to universal insurance coverage, enforcement of parity laws, policies to expand coverage of drug treatment services or greater inclusion of consumers in the development and configuration of behavioral health services. Recommendations offered are based on best practices and evidence-based research. Most research, however, studies incremental changes. To transform rather than reform the system, we integrate consideration of experience and research from other policy areas. The ultimate goal is to generate an action plan that motivates policymakers to address persistent racial and ethnic disparities in the availability and quality of behavioral health services in the Commonwealth.

Achieving accountable care in Massachusetts: payment reform to drive delivery system change.

On November 30, 2010, the Massachusetts Health Policy Forum will convene a forum to examine models of accountable health care delivery. The forum will showcase organizations from Massachusetts and other states that have taken significant steps toward improving the efficiency and quality of health care delivery through vertically and virtually integrated systems. Local stakeholders representing government, payers, providers and consumers will discuss challenges and opportunities for the Commonwealth in promoting accountable care. This paper outlines the challenge of rising health care costs in Massachusetts and provides a brief summary of actions and reports by state officials to address quality and cost concerns. It then discusses the concept of accountable care delivery and related models of coordinated health care. Next, it provides a short overview of the five organizations invited to describe their delivery models. Finally, it identifies unresolved issues that may be addressed at the forum.

Health care reform in Massachusetts: implementation of coverage expansions and a health insurance mandate.

CONTEXT: Much can be learned from Massachusetts's experience implementing health insurance coverage expansions and an individual health insurance mandate. While achieving political consensus on reform is difficult, implementation can be equally or even more challenging. METHODS: The data in this article are based on a case study of Massachusetts, including interviews with key stakeholders, state government, and Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority officials during the first three years of the program and a detailed analysis of primary and secondary documents. FINDINGS: Coverage expansion and an individual mandate led Massachusetts to define affordability standards, establish a minimum level of insurance coverage, adopt insurance market reforms, and institute incentives and penalties to encourage coverage. Implementation entailed trade-offs between the comprehensiveness of benefits and premium costs, the subsidy levels and affordability, and among the level of mandate penalties, public support, and coverage gains. CONCLUSIONS: National lessons from the Massachusetts experience come not only from the specific decisions made but also from the process of decision making, the need to keep stakeholders engaged, the relationship of decisions to existing programs and regulations, and the interactions among program components.

Substance abuse treatment in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: gaps, consequences and solutions.

This issue brief outlines five strategies for improving the quality of treatment in Massachusetts: (1) Engaging detoxification clients in a broader continuum of treatment, (2) Improving retention in treatment, (3) Providing client/family-centered services, (4) Increasing the use of evidence-based treatment approaches, and (5) Supporting recovery to address the chronic nature of substance use disorders. These strategies are essential to maximizing the impact of our substance abuse dollars. We need to do it right and then expand access to treatment more broadly and fill the treatment gap. Although not the focus of this report we need to think harder about upfront prevention and efforts to encourage more people to seek care. Part of the public strategy also requires better coordination between BSAS, MassHealth, provider organizations, and other state agencies, including criminal justice and mental health agencies. Through these efforts we can reduce the costs and consequences of substance abuse and build a healthier, more productive community.

The outlook for hospital spending.

Hospital use and spending greatly increased in 2001 and 2002, reversing a long-term trend. In this paper we contend that the forces driving current hospital expenditures are more likely to continue than they are to abate. If current trends continue, real hospital spending per capita will increase 75 percent between 2002 and 2012, and the demand for hospital beds will increase considerably. We discuss numerous forces that will contribute to spending growth, including technology, which is likely to continue to raise costs. We also find that hospital spending by baby boomers grew more rapidly than that of the elderly, a change in trend that could presage increased spending as this cohort moves into higher-spending age groups.